DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
DECISION, REASONS FOR DECISION AND ORDER
IN THE MATTER OF the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 and the Regulation (Ontario Regulation 437/97) thereunder;
AND IN THE MATTER OF a discipline proceeding against
Tahir Mahmood, a member of the Ontario College of Teachers.
BETWEEN:
ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TEACHERS
– and –
TAHIR MAHMOOD (REGISTRATION #620232)
PANEL: Tom Potter, Chair Irene Dembek, OCT Rebecca Forte, OCT
HEARD: April 2, 2019
Ava Arbuck of McCarthy Tétrault LLP, for Ontario College of Teachers, assisted by Eleanor Enniss, Law Clerk
Tahir Mahmood, self-represented
Erica Richler of Steinecke Maciura LeBlanc, Independent Legal Counsel
PUBLICATION BAN: Pursuant to subsection 32.1(3) of the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996, no person shall publish the identity of, or any information that could disclose the identity of, any person who is under 18 years old and is a witness in a hearing or is the subject of evidence in a hearing.
This matter came on for hearing before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Committee”) on April 2, 2019 at the Ontario College of Teachers (the “College”) at Toronto.
A Notice of Hearing dated November 19, 2018 (Exhibit 1) was served on Tahir Mahmood (the “Member”), inviting him to participate in the scheduling of the hearing and specifying the allegations. The hearing was subsequently set for April 2, 2019.
The Member was not in attendance for the hearing and did not have legal representation. The Committee was advised at the outset of the hearing that the parties had entered into an agreement with respect to the hearing.
THE ALLEGATIONS
The allegations against the Member in the Notice of Hearing are as follows:
IT IS ALLEGED that the Tahir Mahmood is guilty of professional misconduct as defined in the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 (the “Act”) in that:
(a) he failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5);
(b) he abused a student or students psychologically or emotionally, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.2);1
(c) he abused a student or students sexually, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(7.3) and/or engaged in sexual abuse of a student or students as defined in section 1 of the Act;2
(d) he failed to comply with the Act or the regulations or the by-laws, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(14);3
(e) he failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under that Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15);
(f) he committed acts that having regard to all the circumstances would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18); and
(g) he engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19).
AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
College Counsel presented the Committee with the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea (Exhibit 2), which provides the following:
Tahir Mahmood is a member of the Ontario College of Teachers. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “A” is a copy of the Ontario College of Teachers Registered Member Information with respect to the Member.
At all material times, the Member was employed by the [XXX] School (the “School”), a [XXX] school in Mississauga, Ontario.
During the 2016-2017 academic year, the Student was a [XXX]-year-old female student in Grade [XXX] at the School and in the Member’s [XXX] class.
The Student came to Canada in August 2016, to reside with her older sister’s family and attend school in Canada for the 2016-2017 academic year.
The Member’s [XXX] and the Student’s [XXX] were close friends. They were neighbours and their families were comfortable with each other.
At the outset of the 2016-2017 school year, at the request of the Student’s sister, the Member agreed to drive the Student to and from the School. Between September 2016 and early March 2017, the Member drove the Student, along with his daughter and two younger children, to and from the School daily. The administration of the School was not aware of this arrangement.
The Member and the Student exchanged phone numbers and texted each other between September 2016 and early March 2017, mainly for scheduling purposes to get to and from the School, or when the Student needed assistance with her [XXX] homework.
Inappropriate Personal Relationship:
- Between September 2016 and early March 2017, the Member engaged in a personal relationship with the Student that included:
(a) discussing personal issues with the Student outside of the School and school hours, including problems the Student was having at home;
(b) texting with the Student on occasion about personal matters unrelated to School;
(c) permitting the Student to pinch his hand at School or in the car when she was joking with or teasing him;
(d) going on an overnight trip to [XXX] in December 2016 with his family, the Student and the Student’s family;
(e) attending dinners with his family, the Student and the Student’s family at each other’s residences;
(f) taking the Student with his children for ice cream after school on occasion;
(g) discussing topics of a personal nature with the Student including her views on dating.
The Member realized early in the school year that the Student appeared depressed, and he told her she could talk to him. The Student confided in the Member about her struggles with depression and migraines. The Member attempted to assist the Student with her mental health and well-being, despite not being qualified to discuss or offer advice regarding these issues. He did not inform the Student’s family or the School administration about his discussions with the Student.
On Wednesday, February 22, 2017, the Member and the Student discussed going for ice cream later in the week. On Friday evening, February 24, 2017, the Member picked the Student up at around 6:30 p.m. and took her out for ice cream in Brampton, then to a sweets shop in Mississauga. They spent approximately an hour alone together before he dropped the Student off at her residence. They talked about personal and family issues with which the Student was struggling, including the Student’s fear that her parents wanted her to return to her home country.
The Student’s family was not aware that the Member and the Student were spending time alone together, and they would not have consented to the Member spending time alone with the Student.
Later that evening, the Member texted the Student to see if she was all right, because she did not seem to be herself when he dropped her off. The Student responded by text that she felt ill. The Student later reported to her sister and the School’s administration that she felt uncomfortable around the Member.
The Member’s employment was terminated by the School, effective March 4, 2017.
The Member acknowledges that by spending time alone with the Student and discussing personal issues with the Student, he crossed professional boundaries and breached the Ethical Standards of the Teaching Profession, copies of which are attached hereto and marked as Exhibit “B”.
GUILTY PLEA
By this document,4 the Member admits the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 above (the “Admitted Facts”).
The Member hereby acknowledges that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct and pleads guilty to the allegations of professional misconduct against him, being more particularly breaches of Ontario Regulation 437/97 subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional], 1(19).
By this document the Member states that:
(a) he understands fully the nature of the allegations against him;
(b) he understands that by signing this document he is consenting to the evidence as set out in the Admitted Facts being presented to the Discipline Committee;
(c) he understands that by pleading guilty to the allegations, he is waiving the right to require the College to prove the case against him and the right to have a hearing;
(d) he understands that the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons shall be published on the College’s website, and that a summary of the Discipline Committee’s decision and reasons, including his name, shall be published in the official publication of the College;
(e) he understands that any agreement between him and counsel for the College with respect to the penalty proposed in this document does not bind the Discipline Committee;
(f) he understands and acknowledges that he is executing the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea voluntarily, unequivocally, and with the advice of legal counsel.
- In light of the Admitted Facts and circumstances and the plea of guilt, the Ontario College of Teachers and the Member submit that the Discipline Committee find the Member guilty of professional misconduct.
DECISION
Counsel for the College requested that the allegation of professional misconduct outlined in paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of the Notice of Hearing, namely that the Member contravened subsections 1(7.2) 1(7.3) and 1(14) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, be withdrawn. With respect to subsection 1(18) of Ontario Regulation 437/97, College Counsel requested that the Committee find that the Member’s conduct was unprofessional only (and not disgraceful or dishonourable). The Committee granted these requests.
Having considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and the submissions of College Counsel, the Committee rendered an oral decision on April 2, 2019 finding that the Member engaged in acts of professional misconduct as alleged, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
REASONS FOR DECISION
The Member admitted the truth of the facts and exhibits referred to in paragraphs 1 to 14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and admitted the allegations of professional misconduct against him. He acknowledged and the Committee accepts that the Admitted Facts constitute conduct which is professional misconduct, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsections 1(5), 1(15), 1(18) [unprofessional] and 1(19).
Paragraphs 6, 8 to 12, and 14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to maintain the standards of the profession, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(5). Specifically, the Member failed to uphold the ethical standard of trust expected of teaching professionals, by establishing a personal relationship, spending time alone with the Student after school, and discussing the Student’s personal life and health issues. By failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, the Member breached the trust that students, parents and the public place in members of the profession.
Paragraphs 6, 8 to 12, and 14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member failed to comply with the Education Act, Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990 chapter E.2, and specifically subsection 264(1) thereof or the Regulations made under the Act, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(15). Members are expected to be positive role models for students. By allowing an inappropriate personal relationship to develop with the Student, the Member failed to meet his professional obligations.
Paragraphs 6, 8 to 12, and 14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member committed acts that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as unprofessional, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(18). By engaging in inappropriate personal interactions with the Student and by failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, the Member demonstrated poor professional judgment.
Paragraphs 6, 8 to 12, and 14 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea demonstrate that the Member engaged in conduct unbecoming a member, contrary to Ontario Regulation 437/97, subsection 1(19). The Member’s conduct in this matter reflects poorly on the profession and undermines the public trust and confidence placed in members of the teaching profession.
JOINT SUBMISSION ON PENALTY
Through a Joint Submission on Penalty (Exhibit 3), the parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty to be imposed in this matter would be that the Committee:
direct that the Member appear before the Committee on a date to be arranged by the Member within ninety (90) days of the date of the Committee’s Order, to receive a reprimand which will be delivered in person at the offices of the Ontario College of Teachers, 101 Bloor Street W., Toronto, Ontario, and the fact of the reprimand is to be recorded on the Register of the Ontario College of Teachers (the “Register”);
direct the Registrar to suspend the Certificate of Qualification and Registration of the Member for a period of three (3) months commencing on the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee relating to this matter and the fact of the suspension is to be recorded on the Register;
direct the Registrar to impose the following terms, conditions or limitations on the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration, the fact of such terms, conditions or limitations to be recorded on the Register until such time as they are fulfilled:
(a) within 120 days of the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, the Member shall enrol in and successfully complete at his own expense, a course of instruction pre-approved by the Registrar regarding boundary violations with students, subject to the following conditions:
(i) the Member will provide to a course practitioner approved by the Registrar, a copy of the Agreed Statement of Facts and Guilty Plea and Joint Submission on Penalty documents made exhibits at the hearing of this matter, and the Decision, Reasons for Decision and Order of the Discipline Committee;
(ii) upon review of the documents noted at paragraph (i) above, the course practitioner will provide to the Registrar, for approval, a syllabus for the proposed course which specifically addresses the Discipline Committee’s concerns regarding the Member’s professional misconduct. The syllabus proposed by the course practitioner shall also specify the length of the course to be undertaken by the Member, and the assignments to be completed by the Member;
(b) within thirty (30) days of his completion of the course outlined in (a) above, the Member shall provide to the Registrar a written report from the course practitioner:
(i) stating that the Member has successfully completed the course and reporting on the progress of the Member with respect to addressing the outlined goals of the course.
PENALTY DECISION
In an oral decision rendered on April 2, 2019 the Committee accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty presented by the parties and made an order in accordance with its terms, as set out above.
REASONS FOR PENALTY DECISION
The Committee accepts the penalty jointly proposed by the parties. The Committee recognizes that, once it ensures that it has jurisdiction to make the order requested, the law confines the Committee’s role to determining whether the proposed penalty is so unreasonable that accepting it would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or be otherwise contrary to the public interest. The Committee finds that the penalty proposed in the Joint Submission on Penalty is proportionate to the misconduct committed by the Member and is reasonable given the circumstances of this case. The penalty proposed by the parties is also within a reasonable range, based on the following analogous cases presented by College Counsel: Ontario College of Teachers v. Avison, 2018 ONOCT 71 and Ontario College of Teachers v. Grima, 2018 ONOCT 16.
The Committee finds that the Member’s failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with the Student, warrants a reprimand by his peers. Members of the teaching profession hold a unique position of trust and authority with students and in the community. In the totality of circumstances, the Member abused his position and failed to maintain appropriate boundaries over a period of six months by: picking the Student up in his car in the evening and taking the Student for ice cream and sweets alone and without the consent of the Student’s guardian; discussing personal issues with the Student, including her views on dating; texting about personal issues outside School hours; and permitting the Student to pinch his hand at School or in the car. The Committee notes that the Student reported to the School that the Member’s conduct made her feel uncomfortable. Furthermore, despite not being properly qualified to discuss or offer advice on mental health issues, the Member also showed poor professional judgment when he attempted to assist the Student with her health concerns without informing or consulting with the School’s administration or the Student’s guardian.
The Committee notes that while [XXX], the Member only became acquainted with the Student during the 2016-2017 school year,[XXX]. The Member should have taken care not to allow professional boundaries to blur. As a teacher, the Member must fulfill his professional duties, even in the context of familiar relationships. It is inappropriate for members of the profession to develop personal relationships with students. The reprimand will allow the Committee to directly address its concerns with the Member and will serve as a specific deterrent. Recording the fact of the reprimand on the Register will serve as a general deterrent to other members of the profession.
The Committee finds that the three-month suspension of the Member’s Certificate of Qualification and Registration is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances. The Committee notes that the duration of the suspension is consistent with the suspensions ordered for similar acts of professional misconduct, as presented in case law by College Counsel. The suspension will serve as a specific deterrent to the Member by reinforcing the need to maintain appropriate professional boundaries at all times, and the serious consequences for the failure to do so. Recording the fact of the suspension on the public register will serve as a general deterrent by informing other members of the profession that there are serious consequences for engaging in personal relationships with students.
The course of instruction regarding boundary violations with students will assist in the rehabilitation of the Member and help him to recognize and understand that it is inappropriate to develop personal relationships with students. The coursework will be tailored to the Member’s misconduct in this case and will help him to make better decisions in any future interactions with students.
The Committee is satisfied that the penalty is appropriate in the circumstances and meets the principle of serving and protecting the public interest.
Date: April 15, 2019
Tom Potter
Chair, Discipline Panel
Irene Dembek, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel
Rebecca Forte, OCT
Member, Discipline Panel